Nope. Most draft busts are/guys who were projected to be franchise players. Rodney Stuckey is another headcase in Detroit and they need to cut ties with him asap. Michael Beasley with the Heat, Greg Oden with the Blazers, etc

Oh, so I see how it goes. It's perfectly fine for people to discredit the Knicks start despite their best start in 18 years. Nothing "homerish" about that. Nope.

Again, I don't see how pointing out that the Knicks had the best record in the league is turning a blind eye, especially when you consider their schedule and doing so well with two key players injured.

Again, pointing out they HAD the best record and declaring them the best team, in the East and that they have a top seed locked up and they have no weakness and blah blah blah two different things. That point is lost on you.

Derozan needs to take that 42 million dollar paycheck he just got and hire a personal lobbyist to work the refs. I swear, game in and out he gets less respect than any other player his calibre in the league.

Again, pointing out they HAD the best record and declaring them the best team, in the East and that they have a top seed locked up and they have no weakness and blah blah blah two different things. That point is lost on you.

I never said they had the top seed locked up. I said they had the best record in the NBA, which they did.

He didnt really get much of his off hand. Griffin is notorious for using that off hand, and the refs always let him get away with it.

He didn't get Pekovic's arms or anything, but he got it into his body which I think disturbed his attempt to block it. It was a good dunk, and it probably wasn't intentional more than it was instinct, but I'll take a couple style points away.

I combed through the thread. I just saw one poster say they Knicks were the "best team", but at the time he made the point, the Knicks did in fact own the best record in the league.

When they had the best record, he didn't even say they were the best, he said that Miami was better than them and Indiana was better than them, it was once the Knicks dropped 3 games that he decided they were better than Miami

Regardless, to decide they were the best team in the league after 5 games is ridiculous. Again, the Cardinals started the season 4-0, and 4 games in the NFL is worth a damn lot more than 5 games in the NBA, so I guess you thought the Cardinals were amongst the elite teams in the NFL as well? I certainly didn't, because I don't jump to conclusions off such a small sample size. As I and thousands of others expected, the Cardinals proceeded to fall to ****.

Pretty sick of going round in this circle with you, homers gonna homer. It's cool man, you hang on to your belief that the Knicks were the best team in the NBA for 2 weeks or something like it means anything. You seem to be under the impression that I think the Knicks are bad, I don't, but they have to prove they belong with the big dogs before being treated like one, and you don't prove that in November when you got blown up in the playoffs last year.

When they had the best record, he didn't even say they were the best, he said that Miami was better than them and Indiana was better than them, it was once the Knicks dropped 3 games that he decided they were better than Miami

Regardless, to decide they were the best team in the league after 5 games is ridiculous. Again, the Cardinals started the season 4-0, and 4 games in the NFL is worth a damn lot more than 5 games in the NBA, so I guess you thought the Cardinals were amongst the elite teams in the NFL as well? I certainly didn't, because I don't jump to conclusions off such a small sample size. As I and thousands of others expected, the Cardinals proceeded to fall to ****.

Pretty sick of going round in this circle with you, homers gonna homer. It's cool man, you hang on to your belief that the Knicks were the best team in the NBA for 2 weeks or something like it means anything. You seem to be under the impression that I think the Knicks are bad, I don't, but they have to prove they belong with the big dogs before being treated like one, and you don't prove that in November when you got blown up in the playoffs last year.

A bad playoff series doesn't change the fact that the Knicks were among the best under Woodson last year

A bad playoff series doesn't change the fact that the Knicks were among the best under Woodson last year

Among the best = a 7th seed and getting abused in the first round

Yes, much of the season that lead to them getting the 7th seed wasn't under Woodson, but we can't give them credit for any more than that because they got abused in the first round. They did nothing to show they were better than the seed they had. There's no prize for playing well in a shortened stint under a new coach that ultimately lead to nowhere sorry.

So no, they weren't "among the best", unless your definition of "among the best" is a first round playoff exit. My standards are higher than that. When we see the Knicks go through this season and end up with a high seed, when we see them making some noise in the playoffs, then I'll acknowledge them as "among the best", until then no, they haven't shown us jack, they haven't earned jack, they haven't achieved jack. You don't get elevated to the pedestal of the elite teams until you actually earn it.

One thing neglected to be mentioned yet is that Mike Woodson has a career .353 winning percentage in the playoffs. He took two very talented Atlanta teams straight through the regular season only for them to underperform in the playoffs. It would be much easier for me to take the Knicks as a credible contender if they had a different head coach.